Baker v. Grant

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baker v. Grant

497 So. 2d 895, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2097, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9930

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 2, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1539

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 895 (Baker v. Grant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Grant, 497 So. 2d 895, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2097, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9930 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case with prejudice for violation of a court order, dated July 2, 1985, which required the plaintiff to obtain an attorney, notice for hearing a defense motion to dismiss, and serve said notice at least seven days prior to a hearing scheduled on August 22, 1985. This order is unreasonable. A defendant (or the court) can notice outstanding defense motions without requiring the plaintiff to do it.

Additionally, a civil claimant is not required, barring extraordinary circumstances, to be represented by counsel. Unless a case is presented which shows that a litigant has abused his pro se right of access to the court system so as to interfere with the effective administration of justice, a court cannot prevent a litigant in a civil matter from appearing on his own behalf. See Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158 (1908); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So.2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla.1983); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). For this reason, the lower court order which required the litigant to be represented by counsel in order to proceed with his case was invalid. Thus, the dismissal based upon violation of this order was erroneous.

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COBB, Judge.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s case with prejudice for violation of a court order, dated July 2, 1985, which required the plaintiff to obtain an attorney, notice for hearing a defense motion to dismiss, and serve said notice at least seven days prior to a hearing scheduled on August 22, 1985. This order is unreasonable. A defendant (or the court) can notice outstanding defense motions without requiring the plaintiff to do it.

Additionally, a civil claimant is not required, barring extraordinary circumstances, to be represented by counsel. Unless a case is presented which shows that a litigant has abused his pro se right of access to the court system so as to interfere with the effective administration of justice, a court cannot prevent a litigant in a civil matter from appearing on his own behalf. See Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158 (1908); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So.2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla.1983); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). For this reason, the lower court order which required the litigant to be represented by counsel in order to proceed with his case was invalid. Thus, the dismissal based upon violation of this order was erroneous.

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 895, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2097, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-grant-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack